Posted
by
timothyon Thursday July 03, 2014 @01:08PM
from the blame-thompson-for-babyface-nelson dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from TechDirt: Three years ago we wrote about how Austrian police had seized computers from someone running a Tor exit node. This kind of thing happens from time to time, but it appears that folks in Austria have taken it up a notch by... effectively now making it illegal to run a Tor exit node. According to the report, which was confirmed by the accused, the court found that running the node violated 12 of the Austrian penal code, which effectively says:"Not only the immediate perpetrator commits a criminal action, but also anyone who appoints someone to carry it out, or anyone who otherwise contributes to the completion of said criminal action." In other words, it's a form of accomplice liability for criminality. It's pretty standard to name criminal accomplices liable for "aiding and abetting" the activities of others, but it's a massive and incredibly dangerous stretch to argue that merely running a Tor exit node makes you an accomplice that "contributes to the completion" of a crime. Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery. It's a very, very broad interpretation of accomplice liability, in a situation where it clearly does not make sense.

1. Apparently a final ruling has not been reached. While a court has found the operator guilty it's not clear if that will ultimately hold.

2. None of TFA provide any details of what the ruling was based on, beyond the TOT node being used for illegal activity by someone else. Without more details, it is impossible to conclude that merely running a TOR node is illegal; the only conclusion from TFA is someone was prosecuted for running one. A relationship between the operator and the user committing fraud, or if the operator new the user was using the node of illegal purposes, is vastly different than merely running a node where a user is using it for illegal activities. The former is much more reasonable to prosecute than the latter.

3. As others point out, in keeping with/. traditions, the car analogy is bogus.

Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."

If you are going to quote someone then you need to give a name and, if possible, a reference. Saying "a congressman from the United States" is meaningless. Yes, I did a Google search for that phrase and found nothing.

Most of the world uses something called Civil Law [wikipedia.org] as opposed to your Common Law that you inherited from UK.

Which is why in most of the world precedents don't carry as much weight [wikipedia.org] as they do in Common Law legal systems like yours, where the rationale for the decision makes each sentence a binding precedent in other courts.

And that is why this single decision DOES NOT "effectively now make it illegal to run a Tor exit node" in Austria.NOR would "Volkswagen be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery".